Concerning the Unity of God819819Περὶ Θεοῦ
Μοναρχίας.
The word μοναρχία,
as used by Plato (Polit. 291 C), Aristotle (Polit. III.
xiv. 11. εἶδος
μοναρχίας
βασιλικῆς),
Philo Judæus (de Circumcisione, § 2; de
Monarchia, Titul.), means “sole government.”
Compare Tertullian (adv. Praxean. c. iii.): “If I
have gained any knowledge of either language, I am sure that
Μοναρχία
has no other meaning than ‘single and individual
rule.’” Athanasius (de Decretis Nicænæ
Synodi, § 26) has preserved part of an Epistle of Dionysius,
Bishop of Rome (259–269, a.d.), against
the Sabellians: “It will be natural for me now to speak
against those who divide, and cut into pieces, and destroy that most
sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Monarchia, making it, as it
were, three powers and divided hypostases, and three Godheads;”
(ibid.): “It is the doctrine of the presumptuous
Marcion to sever and divide the Monarchia into three origins
(ἀρχάς).” We see here the
sense which Μοναρχία
had acquired in Christian Theology: it meant the
“Unity of God,” as the one principle and origin of all
things. “By the Monarchy is meant the doctrine that the
Second and Third Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity are ever to be
referred in our thoughts to the First, as the Fountain of
Godhead” (Newman, Athanas. de Decretis Nic. Syn.
§ 26, note h). Justin Martyr (Euseb. H.E. IV. 18),
and Irenæus (ibid. V. 20), had each written a
treatise περὶ
Μοναρχίας.
On the history of Monarchianism see, in this Series, Athanasius,
Prolegomena, p. xxiii. sqq.. On the Article, I Believe in One
God. Also Concerning Heresies.

Sanctify yourselves unto Me, O islands. Israel is
saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation; they shall not be
ashamed, neither shall they be confounded for ever, &c.

1. Blessed be the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ8208202 Cor. i. 3.. Blessed also
be His Only-begotten Son821821 This clause is omitted in some
mss. Various forms of the Doxology were
adopted in Cyril’s time by various parties in the Church.
Thus Theodoret (Hist. Eccles. II. c. 19) relates that Leontius,
Bishop of Antioch, a.d. 348–357,
observing that the Clergy and the Congregation were divided into two
parties, the one using the form “and to the Son, and to the Holy
Ghost,” the other “through the Son, in the Holy
Ghost,” used to repeat the Doxology silently, so that those who
were near could hear only “world without end.” The form which was regarded as the most
orthodox, and adopted in the Liturgies ran thus: “Glory to
the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, now and ever, and to
the ages of the ages.” See Suicer’s Thesaurus,
Δοξολογία.. For with the
thought of God let the thought of Father at once be
joined, that the ascription of glory to the Father and the Son may be
made indivisible. For the Father hath not one glory, and the Son
another, but one and the same, since He is the Father’s
Only-begotten Son; and when the Father is glorified, the Son also
shares the glory with Him, because the glory of the Son flows from His
Father’s honour: and again, when the Son is glorified, the
Father of so great a blessing is highly honoured.

2. Now though the mind is most rapid in its
thoughts, yet the tongue needs words, and a long recital of
intermediary speech. For the eye embraces at once a multitude of
the ‘starry quire;’ but when any one wishes to describe
them one by one, which is the Morning-star, and which, the
Evening-star, and which each one of them, he has need of many
words. In like manner again the mind in the briefest moment
compasses earth and sea and all the bounds of the universe; but what it
conceives in an instant, it uses many words to describe822822 Irenæus II. xxviii.
4: “But since God is all mind, all reason, all active
Spirit, all light, and always exists as one and the same, such
conditions and divisions (of operation) cannot fittingly be ascribed to
Him. For our tongue, as being made of flesh, is not able to
minister to the rapidity of man’s sense, because that is of a
spiritual nature; for which reason our speech is restrained
(suffocatur) within us, and is not at once expressed as it has
been conceived in the mind but is uttered by successive efforts, just
as the tongue is able to serve it.”. Yet forcible as is the example I have
mentioned, still it is after all weak and inadequate. For of God
we speak not all we ought (for that is known to Him only), but so much
as the capacity of human nature has received, and so much as our
weakness can bear. For we explain not what God is but candidly
confess that we have not exact knowledge concerning Him. For in
what concerns God to confess our ignorance is the best
knowledge823823 Tertullian,
Apologeticus, § 17: “That which is infinite is
known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God,
while yet beyond all our conceptions—our very incapacity of fully
grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is. He is
presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known
and unknown.” Cf. Phil. Jud. de Monarch. i.
4: Hooker, Eccles. Pol. I. ii. 3: “Whom
although to know be life, and joy to make mention of His name; yet our
soundest knowledge is to know that we know Him not as He is, neither
can know Him.”. Therefore
magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His Name together824824Ps. xxxiv. 3.,—all of us in common, for one alone is
powerless; nay rather, even if we be all united together, we shall yet
not do it as we ought. I mean not you only who are here present,
but even if all the nurslings of the whole Church throughout the world,
both that which now is and that which shall be, should meet together,
they would not be able worthily to sing the praises of their
Shepherd.

3. A great and honourable man was Abra34ham, but only great in comparison with
men; and when he came before God, then speaking the truth candidly he
saith, I am earth and ashes825825Gen. xviii. 27.. He did
not say ‘earth,’ and then cease, lest he should call
himself by the name of that great element; but he added ‘and
ashes,’ that he might represent his perishable and frail
nature. Is there anything, he saith, smaller or lighter than
ashes? For take, saith he, the comparison of ashes to a house, of
a house to a city, a city to a province, a province to the Roman
Empire, and the Roman Empire to the whole earth and all its bounds, and
the whole earth to the heaven in which it is embosomed;—the
earth, which bears the same proportion to the heaven as the centre to
the whole circumference of a wheel, for the earth is no more than this
in comparison with the heaven826826 The opinion of
Aristarchus of Samos, as stated by Archimedes (Arenarius, p.
320, Oxon), was that the sphere of the fixed stars was so large, that
it bore to the earth’s orbit the same proportion as a sphere to
its centre, or more correctly (as Archimedes explains) the same
proportion as the earth’s orbit round the sun to the earth
itself. Compare Cat. xv. 24.: consider then
that this first heaven which is seen is less than the second, and the
second than the third, for so far Scripture has named them, not that
they are only so many, but because it was expedient for us to know so
many only. And when in thought thou hast surveyed all the
heavens, not yet will even the heavens be able to praise God as He is,
nay, not if they should resound with a voice louder than thunder.
But if these great vaults of the heavens cannot worthily sing
God’s praise, when shall ‘earth and ashes,’
the smallest and least of things existing, be able to send up a worthy
hymn of praise to God, or worthily to speak of God, that sitteth
upon the circle of the earth, and holdeth the inhabitants thereof as
grasshoppers827827Is. xl. 22..

4. If any man attempt to speak of God, let
him first describe the bounds of the earth. Thou dwellest on the
earth, and the limit of this earth which is thy dwelling thou knowest
not: how then shalt thou be able to form a worthy thought of its
Creator? Thou beholdest the stars, but their Maker thou beholdest
not: count these which are visible, and then describe Him who is
invisible, Who telleth the number of the stars, and calleth them all
by their names828828Ps. cxlvii. 4.. Violent rains
lately came pouring down upon us, and nearly destroyed us: number
the drops in this city alone: nay, I say not in the city, but
number the drops on thine own house for one single hour, if thou
canst: but thou canst not. Learn then thine own weakness;
learn from this instance the mightiness of God: for He hath
numbered the drops of rain829829Job xxxvi. 27: ἀριθμηταὶ δὲ
αὐτῷ
σταγόνες
ὑετοῦ. R.V. For He draweth up the drops of
water., which have been
poured down on all the earth, not only now but in all time. The
sun is a work of God, which, great though it be, is but a spot in
comparison with the whole heaven; first gaze stedfastly upon the sun,
and then curiously scan the Lord of the sun. Seek not the
things that are too deep for thee, neither search out the things that
are above thy strength: what is commanded thee, think
thereupon830830Ecclus. iii. 21, 22..

5. But some one will say, If the Divine
substance is incomprehensible, why then dost thou discourse of these
things? So then, because I cannot drink up all the river, am I
not even to take in moderation what is expedient for me? Because
with eyes so constituted as mine I cannot take in all the sun, am I not
even to look upon him enough to satisfy my wants? Or again,
because I have entered into a great garden, and cannot eat all the
supply of fruits, wouldst thou have me go away altogether hungry?
I praise and glorify Him that made us; for it is a divine command which
saith, Let every breath praise the Lord831831Ps. cl. 6.. I am attempting now to glorify the
Lord, but not to describe Him, knowing nevertheless that I shall fall
short of glorifying Him worthily, yet deeming it a work of piety even
to attempt it at all. For the Lord Jesus encourageth my weakness,
by saying, No man hath seen God at any time832832John i. 18. They are the Evangelist’s
own words..

6. What then, some man will say, is it not
written, The little ones’ Angels do always behold the face of
My Father which is in heaven833833Matt. xviii. 10.? Yes, but
the Angels see God not as He is, but as far as they themselves are
capable. For it is Jesus Himself who saith, Not that any man
hath seen the Father, save He which is of God, He hath seen the
Father834834John vi. 46.. The Angels
therefore behold as much as they can bear, and Archangels as much as
they are able; and Thrones and Dominions more than the former, but yet
less than His worthiness: for with the Son the Holy Ghost alone
can rightly behold Him: for He searcheth all things, and
knoweth even the deep things of God8358351 Cor. ii. 10.: as indeed the Only-begotten Son also,
with the Holy Ghost, knoweth the Father fully: For
neither, saith He, knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,
and he to whom the Son will reveal Him836836Matt. xi. 27.. For He fully beholdeth, and, according
as each can bear, revealeth God through the Spirit: since the
Only-begotten Son together with the Holy Ghost is a partaker of the
Father’s Godhead. 35He, who837837 The Benedictine and
earlier printed texts read ὁ
γεννηθεὶς
[ἀπαθῶς πρὸ
τῶν χρόνων
αἰωνίων]: but
the words in brackets are not found in the best mss. The false grammar betrays a spurious insertion,
which also interrupts the sense. On the meaning of the
phrase ὁ γεννηθεὶς
ἀπαθῶς, see note on vii.
5: οὐ
πάθει πατὴρ
γενόμενος. was begotten
knoweth Him who begat; and He Who begat knoweth Him who is
begotten. Since Angels then are ignorant (for to each according
to his own capacity doth the Only-begotten reveal Him through the Holy
Ghost, as we have said), let no man be ashamed to confess his
ignorance. I am speaking now, as all do on occasion: but
how we speak, we cannot tell: how then can I declare Him who hath
given us speech? I who have a soul, and cannot tell its
distinctive properties, how shall I be able to describe its
Giver?

7. For devotion it suffices us simply to
know that we have a God; a God who is One, a living838838 Gr. ὄντα, ἀεὶ
ὄντα.,
an ever-living God; always like unto Himself839839 Iren. II. xiii. 3:
“He is altogether like and equal to Himself; since He is all
sense, and all spirit, and all feeling, and all thought, and all
reason, and all hearing, and all ear, and all eye, and all light, and
all a fount of every good,—even as the religious and pious are
wont to speak of God.”; who
has no Father, none mightier than Himself, no successor to thrust Him
out from His kingdom: Who in name is manifold, in power infinite,
in substance uniform840840μονοειδῆ.
A Platonic word. Phædo, 80 B:
τῷ μὲν
θείω καὶ
ἀθανάτῳ καὶ
νοητῷ καὶ
μονοειδεῖ
καὶ ἀδιαλύτῳ
καὶ ἀεὶ
ὡσαύτως κατὰ
τὰ αὐτὰ
ἔχοντι ἑαυτῷ
ὁμοιότατον
εἶναι
ψυχήν. See Index,
“Hypostasis.”. For though He
is called Good, and Just, and Almighty and Sabaoth841841 Iren. II. xxxv. 3:
“If any object that in the Hebrew language different expressions
occur, such as Sabaoth, Elöe, Adonai, and all other such terms,
striving to prove from these that there are different powers and Gods,
let them learn that all expressions of this kind are titles and
announcements of one and the same Being.”,
He is not on that account diverse and various; but being one and the
same, He sends forth countless operations of His Godhead, not exceeding
here and deficient there, but being in all things like unto
Himself. Not great in loving-kindness only, and little in wisdom,
but with wisdom and loving-kindness in equal power: not seeing in
part, and in part devoid of sight; but being all eye, and all ear, and
all mind842842 See the passages of
Irenæus quoted above, § 2 note 4, and § 7 note 3.: not like us
perceiving in part and in part not knowing; for such a statement were
blasphemous, and unworthy of the Divine substance. He foreknoweth
the things that be; He is Holy, and Almighty, and excelleth all in
goodness, and majesty, and wisdom: of Whom we can declare neither
beginning, nor form, nor shape. For ye have neither heard His
voice at any time, nor seen His shape843843John v. 37.,
saith Holy Scripture. Wherefore Moses saith also to the
Israelites: And take ye good heed to your own souls, for ye
saw no similitude844844Deut. iv. 15.. For if it is
wholly impossible to imagine His likeness, how shall thought come near
His substance?

8. There have been many imaginations by many
persons, and all have failed. Some have thought that God is fire;
others that He is, as it were, a man with wings, because of a true text
ill understood, Thou shalt hide me under the shadow of Thy
wings845845Ps. xvii. 8.. They forgot
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, speaks in like manner
concerning Himself to Jerusalem, How often would I have gathered thy
children together even as a hen doth gather her chickens under her
wings, and ye would not846846Matt. xxiii. 37.. For whereas
God’s protecting power was conceived as wings, they failing to
understand this sank down to the level of things human, and supposed
that the Unsearchable exists in the likeness of man. Some again
dared to say that He has seven eyes, because it is written, seven
eyes of the Lord looking upon the whole earth847847Zech. iv. 10.. For if He has but seven eyes
surrounding Him in part, His seeing is therefore partial and not
perfect: but to say this of God is blasphemous; for we must
believe that God is in all things perfect, according to our
Saviour’s word, which saith, Your Father in heaven is
perfect848848Matt. v. 48.: perfect in
sight, perfect in power, perfect in greatness, perfect in
foreknowledge, perfect in goodness, perfect in justice, perfect in
loving-kindness: not circumscribed in any space, but the Creator
of all space, existing in all, and circumscribed by none849849 Philo Judæus
(Leg. Alleg. I. 14. p. 52). Θεοῦ γὰρ
οὐδὲ ὁ
σύμπας
κόσμος ἀξίον
ἂν εἴη χωρίον
καὶ
ἐνδιαίτημα,
ἐπεὶ αὐτὸς
ἑαυτῷ
τήπος. So Sir Isaac Newton, at
the end of the Principia, asserts that God by His eternal and infinite
existence constitutes Time and Space: “Non est duratio vel
spatium, sed durat et adest, et existendo semper et ubique spatium et
durationem constituit.”. Heaven is His throne, but
higher is He that sitteth thereon: and earth is His
footstool850850Is. lxvi. 1., but His power
reacheth unto things under the earth.

9. One He is, everywhere present, beholding
all things, perceiving all things, creating all things through
Christ: For all things were made by Him, and without Him was
not anything made851851John i. 3.. A fountain of
every good, abundant and unfailing, a river of blessings, an eternal
light of never-failing splendour, an insuperable power condescending to
our infirmities: whose very Name we dare not hear852852 The sacred name
(הוהי) was not
pronounced, but Adonai was substituted.. Wilt thou find a footstep of the
Lord? saith Job, or hast thou attained unto the least things
which the Almighty hath made853853Job xi. 7
(R.V.): Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou
find out the Almighty unto perfection? Cyril seems to have
understood τὰ
ἔσχατα as “the
least,” not as “the utmost.”? If the
least of His works are incomprehensible, shall He be
36comprehended who made them
all? Eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, neither have
entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for
them that love Him8548541 Cor. ii. 9.. If the things
which God hath prepared are incomprehensible to our thoughts, how can
we comprehend with our mind Himself who hath prepared them? O
the depth of the riches, and wisdom, and knowledge of God! How
unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding
out855855Rom. xi. 33.! saith the Apostle. If His judgments
and His ways are incomprehensible, can He Himself be
comprehended?

10. God then being thus great, and yet
greater, (for even were I to change my whole substance into tongue, I
could not speak His excellence: nay more, not even if all Angels
should assemble, could they ever speak His worth), God being therefore
so great in goodness and majesty, man hath yet dared to say to a stone
that he hath graven, Thou art my God856856Is. xliv. 17.! O monstrous blindness, that from
majesty so great came down so low! The tree which was planted by
God, and nourished by the rain, and afterwards burnt and turned into
ashes by the fire,—this is addressed as God, and the true God is
despised. But the wickedness of idolatry grew yet more prodigal,
and cat, and dog, and wolf857857 The cat was sacred to the goddess
Pasht, called by the Greeks Bubastis, and identified by Herodotus (ii.
137) with Artemis or Diana. Cats were embalmed after death, and
their mummies are found at various places, but especially at Bubastis
(Herod. ii. 67). “The Dogs are interred in the cities to
which they belong, in sacred burial-places” (Herod. ii.
67), but chiefly at Cynopolis (“City of Dogs”) where the
dog-headed deity Anubis was worshipped. Mummies of wolves are found in chambers
excavated in the rocks at Lycopolis, where Osiris was worshipped under
the symbol of a wolf. were worshipped
instead of God: the man-eating lion858858 The lion was held sacred
at Leontopolis (Strabo, xvii. p. 812). also
was worshipped instead of God, the most loving friend of man. The
snake and the serpent859859 “In the neighbourhood of Thebes
there are sacred serpents perfectly harmless to man. These they
bury in the temple of Zeus, the god to whom they are
sacred.” (Herod. ii. 74.) At Epidaurus in Argolis the serpent
was held sacred as the symbol of Æsculapius. Clement of
Alexandria (Exhort. c. ii.) gives a fuller list of animals
worshipped by various nations. Compare also Clement.
Recogn. V. 20., counterfeit of him
who thrust us out of Paradise, were worshipped, and He who planted
Paradise was despised. And I am ashamed to say, and yet do say
it, even onions860860 Juvenal
Sat. xv. 7. Illic aeluros, hic piscem fluminis, illic Oppida tota canem venerantur, nemo Dianam. Possum et caepe nefas violare et frangere
morsu. were worshipped among
some. Wine was given to make glad the heart of
man861861Ps. civ. 15.: and Dionysus (Bacchus) was worshipped
instead of God. God made corn by saying, Let the earth bring
forth grass, yielding seed after his kind and after his
likeness862862Gen. i. 11., that bread may
strengthen man’s heart863863Ps. civ. 15.: why then
was Demeter (Ceres) worshipped? Fire cometh forth from striking
stones together even to this day: how then was Hephæstus
(Vulcan) the creator of fire?

11. Whence came the polytheistic error of
the Greeks864864 The early Creeds of the
Eastern Churches, like that which Eusebius of Cæsarea proposed at
Nicæa, expressly declare the unity of God, in opposition both to
the heathen Polytheism, and to the various heresies which introduced
two or more Gods. See below in this Lecture, §§
12–18; and compare Athan. (contra Gentes, § 6,
sqq.)? God has no
body: whence then the adulteries alleged among those who are by
them called gods? I say nothing of the transformations of Zeus
into a swan: I am ashamed to speak of his transformations into a
bull: for bellowings are unworthy of a god. The god of the
Greeks has been found an adulterer, yet are they not ashamed: for
if he is an adulterer let him not be called a god. They tell also
of deaths865865 Clement of
Alexandria (Exhort. cap. ii. § 37), quotes a passage from a
hymn of Callimachus, implying the death of Zeus: “For even thy tomb, O king, The Cretans fashioned.” Adonis, or “Thammuz yearly
wounded,” was said to live and die in alternate years., and falls866866 By the word
“falls” (ἀποπτώσεις) Cyril evidently refers to the story of Hephæstus, or Vulcan, to
which Milton alludes (Paradise Lost, I. 740):— “Men call’d him Mulciber, and how he
fell From heaven they fabled, thrown by angry Jove Sheer o’er the crystal battlements: from
morn To noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve, A summer’s day.”, and thunder-strokes867867 The
“thunder-strokes” refer to “Titan heaven’s
first-born, With his enormous brood” (Par. Lost, I.
510). Cf. Virgil, Æn. vi.
580:— “Hic genus antiquum Terræ, Titania pubes, Fulmine dejecti fundo volvuntur in imo.” Ibid. v. 585:— “Vidi et crudeles dantem Salmonea pœnas, Dum flammas Jovis et sonitus imitatur Olympi.” Clem. Alex. (Exhort. II.
§ 37):—“Æsculapius lies struck with lightning in
the regions of Cynosuris.” Cf. Virg.
Æn. vii. 770 ss. of
their gods. Seest thou from how great a height and how low they
have fallen? Was it without reason then that the Son of God came
down from heaven? or was it that He might heal so great a wound?
Was it without reason that the Son came? or was it in order that the
Father might be acknowledged? Thou hast learned what moved the
Only-begotten to come down from the throne at God’s right
hand. The Father was despised, the Son must needs correct the
error: for He Through Whom All Things Were Made must bring them all as offerings to the Lord of
all. The wound must be healed: for what could be worse than
this disease, that a stone should be worshipped instead of
God?

Of Heresies.

12. And not among the heathen only did the devil
make these assaults; for many of those who are falsely called
Christians, and wrongfully addressed by the sweet name of Christ, have
ere now impiously dared to banish God from His own creation. I
mean the brood of heretics, those most ungodly men 37of evil name, pretending to be friends of
Christ but utterly hating Him. For he who blasphemes the Father
of the Christ is an enemy of the Son. These men have dared to
speak of two Godheads, one good and one evil868868 The theory of two Gods,
one good and the other evil, was held by Cerdo, and Marcion
(Hippolytus, Refut. omnium Hær. VII. cap. 17:
Irenæus, III. xxv. 3, quoted in note on Cat. iv. 4). The
Manichees also held that the Creator of the world was distinct from the
Supreme God (Alexander Lycop. de Manichæorum Sententiis,
cap. iii.).! O monstrous blindness! If a
Godhead, then assuredly good. But if not good, why called a
Godhead? For if goodness is an attribute of God; if
loving-kindness, beneficence, almighty power, are proper to God, then
of two things one, either in calling Him God let the name and operation
be united; or if they would rob Him of His operations, let them not
give Him the bare name.

13. Heretics have dared to say that there
are two Gods, and of good and evil two sources, and these
unbegotten. If both are unbegotten it is certain that they are
also equal, and both mighty. How then doth the light destroy the
darkness? And do they ever exist together, or are they
separated? Together they cannot be; for what fellowship hath
light with darkness? saith the Apostle8698692 Cor. vi. 14. Cyril’s description applies
especially to the heresy of Manes. See § 36, note 3, at the
end of this Lecture; also Cat. xi. 21. and Cat. xv. 3.. But if they are far from each other,
it is certain that they hold also each his own place; and if they hold
their own separate places, we are certainly in the realm of one God,
and certainly worship one God. For thus we must conclude, even if
we assent to their folly, that we must worship one God. Let us
examine also what they say of the good God. Hath He power or no
power? If He hath power, how did evil arise against His
will? And how doth the evil substance intrude, if He be not
willing? For if He knows but cannot hinder it, they charge Him
with want of power; but if He has the power, yet hinders not, they
accuse Him of treachery. Mark too their want of sense. At
one time they say that the Evil One hath no communion with the good God
in the creation of the world; but at another time they say that he hath
the fourth part only. Also they say that the good God is the
Father of Christ; but Christ they call this sun. If, therefore
according to them, the world was made by the Evil One, and the sun is
in the world, how is the Son of the Good an unwilling slave in the
kingdom of the Evil? We bemire ourselves in speaking of these
things, but we do it lest any of those present should from ignorance
fall into the mire of the heretics. I know that I have defiled my
own mouth and the ears of my listeners: yet it is
expedient. For it is much better to hear absurdities charged
against others, than to fall into them from ignorance: far better
that thou know the mire and hate it, than unawares fall into it.
For the godless system of the heresies is a road with many branches,
and whenever a man has strayed from the one straight way, then he falls
down precipices again and again.

14. The inventor of all heresy was Simon
Magus870870 So Irenæus (I.
xxiii. 2) says that “from this Simon of Samaria all kinds of
heresies derive their origin.”: that Simon, who in the Acts of the
Apostles thought to purchase with money the unsaleable grace of the
Spirit, and heard the words, Thou hast neither part nor lot in this
matter871871Acts viii. 18–21., and the rest:
concerning whom also it is written, They went out from us, but they
were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained
with us8728721 John ii. 19.. This man,
after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome, and gaining
over one Helena a harlot873873 Irenæus (I. xxiii.
2): “Having purchased from Tyre, a city of Phœnicia, a
certain harlot named Helena, he used to carry her about with him,
declaring that this woman was the first conception of his mind, the
mother of all, by whom in the beginning he conceived in his mind the
creation of Angels and Archangels.”, was the first that
dared with blasphemous mouth to say that it was himself who appeared on
Mount Sinai as the Father, and afterwards appeared among the Jews, not
in real flesh but in seeming874874 Cf. Epiphan.
(Hæres. p. 55, B): “He said that he was the Son
and had not really suffered, but only in appearance (δοκήσει).”, as Christ Jesus, and
afterwards as the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised to send as the
Paraclete875875 Irenæus (I. xxiii. 1): “He
taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, and
descended in Samaria as the Father, but came to other nations as the
Holy Spirit.” Cyril here departs from his authority by
substituting Mount Sinai for Samaria, and thereby falls into
error. Simon had first appeared in Samaria, being a native of
Gitton: moreover in claiming to be the Father he meant to set
himself far above the inferior Deity who had given the Law on Sinai,
saying that he was “the highest of all Powers, that is the Father
who is over all.”. And he so
deceived the City of Rome that Claudius set up his statue, and wrote
beneath it, in the language of the Romans, “Simoni Deo
Sancto,” which being interpreted signifies, “To Simon the
Holy God876876 “Justin Martyr in
his first Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, writes thus (c.
26): ‘There was one Simon a Samaritan, of the village
called Gitton, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your
royal city of Rome, did mighty feats of magic by the art of dæmons
working in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was
honoured among you with a statue, which statue was set up in the river
Tiber between the two bridges, and bears this inscription in Latin:Simoni Deo Sancto; which is, To Simon the holy God. “The substance of this story is repeated by
Irenæus (adv. Hær. I. xxiii. 1), and by
Tertullian (Apol. c. 13), who reproaches the Romans for
installing Simon Magus in their Pantheon, and giving him a statue and
the title ‘Holy God.’ “In a.d. 1574, a
stone, which had formed the base of a statue, was dug up on the site
described by Justin, the Island in the Tiber, bearing an
inscription—‘Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum,
&c.’ Hence it has been supposed that Justin mistook a
statue of the Sabine God, ‘Semo Sancus,’ for one of Simon
Magus. See the notes in Otto’s Justin Martyr, and
Stieren’s Irenæus. “On the other hand Tillemont
(Memoires, t. ii. p. 482) maintains that Justin in an
Apology addressed to the emperor and written in Rome itself cannot
reasonably be supposed to have fallen into so manifest an error.
Whichever view we take of Justin’s accuracy concerning the
inscription and the statue, there is nothing improbable in his
statement that Simon Magus was at Rome in the reign of
Claudius.” (Extracted by permission from the
Speaker’s Commentary, Introduction to the Epistle to the
Romans, p. 4.).”

3815. As
the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers
of the Church, arrived and set the error right877877 “Justin says not one word about
St. Peter’s alleged visit to Rome, and his encounter with Simon
Magus.” But “Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical
History (c. a.d. 325), quotes Justin
Martyr’s story about Simon Magus (E. H. ii. c. 13), and
then, without referring to any authority, goes on to assert (c. 14)
that ‘immediately in the same reign of Claudius divine Providence
led Peter the great Apostle to Rome to encounter this great destroyer
of life,’ and that he thus brought the light of the Gospel from
the East to the West’ (ibidem). Eusebius probably borrowed this
story “from the strange fictions of the Clementine
Recognitions and Homilies, and Apostolic
Constitutions.” See Recogn. III. 63–65;
Hom. I. 15, III. 58; Apost. Constit. VI. 7, 8, 9.
Cyril’s account of Simon’s death is taken from the same
untrustworthy sources.; and
when the supposed god Simon wished to shew himself off, they
straightway shewed him as a corpse. For Simon promised to rise
aloft to heaven, and came riding in a dæmons’ chariot on the
air; but the servants of God fell on their knees, and having shewn that
agreement of which Jesus spake, that If two of you shall agree
concerning anything that they shall ask, it shall be done unto
them878878Matt. xviii. 19., they launched the
weapon of their concord in prayer against Magus, and struck him down to
the earth. And marvellous though it was, yet no marvel. For
Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven879879Ib. xvi.
19.: and nothing wonderful, for Paul was
there880880 It is certain that S.
Paul was not at Rome at this time. This story of Simon Magus and
his ‘fiery car’ is told, with variations, by Arnobius
(adv. Gentes, II. 12), and in Apost. Constit. VI.
9., who was caught up to the third
heaven, and into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it
is not lawful far a man to utter8818812 Cor. xii. 2, 4.. These
brought the supposed God down from the sky to earth, thence to be taken
down to the regions below the earth. In this man first the
serpent of wickedness appeared; but when one head had been cut off, the
root of wickedness was found again with many heads.

16. For Cerinthus882882 Cerinthus taught that
the world was not made by the supreme God, but by a separate Power
ignorant of Him. See Irenæus, Hær. I.
xxvi., Euseb. E.H. iii. 28, with the notes in this
Series.made havoc of the Church, and Menander883883 Menander is first
mentioned by Justin M. (Apolog. I. cap. 26):
“Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a
disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived
many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded
those who adhered to him that they should never die.”
Irenæus (I. xxiii. 5) adds that Menander announced himself as the
Saviour sent by the Invisibles, and taught that the world was created
by Angels. See also Tertullian (de Animâ, cap.
50.), and
Carpocrates884884 Carpocrates, a
Platonic philosopher, who taught at Alexandria (125 a.d. circ.), held that the world and all things in
it were made by Angels far inferior to the unbegotten (unknown) Father
(Iren. I. xxv. 1; Tertullian, Adv. Hær. cap. 3)., Ebionites885885 Irenæus, I.
26: “Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world
was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are like
those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.” also, and Marcion886886 On Marcion, see note 5,
on Cat. iv. 4., that
mouthpiece of ungodliness. For he who proclaimed different gods,
one the Good, the other the Just, contradicts the Son when He says,
O righteous Father887887John xvii. 25.. And he who
says again that the Father is one, and the maker of the world another,
opposes the Son when He says, If then God so clothes the grass of
the field which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the furnace of
fire888888Luke xii. 28.; and, Who maketh
His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the
just and on the unjust889889Matt. v. 45.. Here again is
a second inventor of more mischief, this Marcion. For being
confuted by the testimonies from the Old Testament which are quoted in
the New, he was the first who dared to cut those testimonies
out890890 Marcion accepted only
St. Luke’s Gospel, and mutilated that (Tertullian, Adv.
Marcion. iv. 2). He thus got rid of the testimony of the
Apostles and eye-witnesses, Matthew and John, and represented the Law
and the Gospel as contradictory revelations of two different
Gods. For this Cyril calls him ‘a second inventor of
mischief,’ Simon Magus (§ 14) being the first., and leave the preaching of the word of faith
without witness, thus effacing the true God: and sought to
undermine the Church’s faith, as if there were no heralds of
it.

17. He again was succeeded by another,
Basilides, of evil name, and dangerous character, a preacher of
impurities891891 Basilides was
earlier than Marcion, being the founder of a Gnostic sect at Alexandria
in the reign of Hadrian (a.d.
117–138). His doctrines are described by Irenæus (I.
xxvii. 3–7), and very fully by Hippolytus (Refut. omn.
Hær. VII. 2–15). The charge of teaching
licentiousness attaches rather to the later followers of Basilides than
to himself or his son Isidorus (Clem. Alex. Stromat. III.
cap. 1). Basilides wrote a Commentary on the Gospel in 24 books
(Exegetica), of which the 23rd is quoted by Clement of
Alexandria (Stromat. IV. cap. 12), and against which Agrippa
Castor wrote a refutation. Origen (Hom. I. in
Lucam.) says that Basilides wrote a Gospel bearing his own
name. See Routh, Rell. Sacr. I. p. 85; V. p.
106: Westcott, History of Canon of N.T. iv. §
3.. The contest of
wickedness was aided also by Valentinus892892 “The
doctrines of Valentinus are described fully by Irenæus (I. cap.
i.) from whom S. Cyril takes this account. Valentinus, and
Basilides, and Bardesanes, and Harmonious, and those of their company
admit Christ’s conception and birth of the Virgin, but say that
God the Word received no addition from the Virgin, but made a sort of
passage through her, as through a tube, and made use of a phantom in
appearing to men.” (Theodoret, Epist.
145.), a
preacher of thirty gods. The Greeks tell of but few: and
the man who was called—but more truly was not—a Christian
extended the delusion to full thirty. He says, too, that Bythus
the Abyss (for it became him as being an abyss of wickedness to begin
his teaching from the Abyss) begat Silence, and of Silence begat the
Word. This Bythus was worse than the Zeus of the Greeks, who was
united to his sister: for Silence was said to be the child of
Bythus. Dost thou see the absurdity invested with a show of
Christianity? Wait a little, and thou wilt be shocked at his
impiety; for he asserts that of this Bythus were begotten eight
Æons; and of them, ten; and of them, other twelve, male and
female. But whence is the proof of these things? See their
silliness from their fabrications. Whence hast thou the proof of
the thirty Æons? Because, saith he, it is written, that
Jesus was baptized, 39being thirty years old893893Luke iii. 23.. But even if He was baptized when
thirty years old, what sort of demonstration is this from the thirty
years? Are there then five gods, because He brake five loaves
among five thousand? Or because he had twelve Disciples, must
there also be twelve gods?

18. And even this is still little compared
with the impieties which follow. For the last of the deities
being, as he dares to speak, both male and female, this, he says, is
Wisdom894894 Irenæus I. ii.
2.. What impiety! For the Wisdom
of God8958951 Cor. i. 24. is Christ His
Only-begotten Son: and he by his doctrine degraded the Wisdom of
God into a female element, and one of thirty, and the last
fabrication. He also says that Wisdom attempted to behold the
first God, and not bearing His brightness fell from heaven, and was
cast out of her thirtieth place. Then she groaned, and of her
groans begat the Devil896896 Irenæus, l. c., and Hippolytus, who
gives an elaborate account of the doctrines of Valentinus (L. VI. capp.
xvi.–xxxii.), both represent Sophia, “Wisdom,” as
giving birth not to Satan, but to a shapeless abortion, which was the
origin of matter. According to Irenæus (I. iv. 2), Achamoth,
the enthymesis of Sophia, gave birth to the Demiurge, and “from
her tears all that is of a liquid nature was formed.” In Tertullian’s Treatise
against the Valentinians chap. xxii., Achamoth is said as by
Cyril to have given birth to Satan: but in chap. xxiii. Satan
seems to be identified (or interchanged) with the Demiurge., and as she wept over
her fall made of her tears the sea. Mark the impiety. For
of Wisdom how is the Devil begotten, and of prudence wickedness, or of
light darkness? He says too that the Devil begat others, some of
whom created the world: and that the Christ came down in order to
make mankind revolt from the Maker of the world.

19. But hear whom they say Christ Jesus to
be, that thou mayest detest them yet more. For they say that
after Wisdom had been cast down, in order that the number of the thirty
might not be incomplete, the nine and twenty Æons contributed each
a little part, and formed the Christ897897 The account in Irenæus (I. ii. 6) is
rather different: “The whole Pleroma of the Æons, with
one design and desire, and with the concurrence of the Christ and the
Holy Spirit, their Father also setting the seal of His approval on
their conduct, brought together whatever each one had in himself of the
greatest beauty and preciousness; and uniting all these contributions
so as skilfully to blend the whole, they produced, to the honour and
glory of Bythus, a being of most perfect beauty, the very star of the
Pleroma, and its perfect fruit, namely Jesus.” Tertullian, Against the
Valentinians, chap. 12, gives a sarcastic description of this
strange doctrine, deriving his facts (chap. 5) from Justin, Miltiades,
“Irenæus, that very exact inquirer into all
doctrines,” and Proculus.: and they
say that He also is both male and female898898 This statement does not
agree with Irenæus (I. vii. 1), who says that the Valentinians
represented the Saviour, that is Jesus, as becoming the bridegroom of
Achamoth or Sophia.. Can anything be more impious than
this? Anything more wretched? I am describing their
delusion to thee, in order that thou mayest hate them the more.
Shun, therefore, their impiety, and do not even give greeting
to8998992 John 10, 11: “Neither bid him God
speed” (A.V.): “give him no
greeting” (R.V.). a man of this kind, lest thou have
fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness900900Ephes. v. 11.: neither make curious inquiries, nor be
willing to enter into conversation with them.

20. Hate all heretics, but especially him
who is rightly named after mania901901 Eusebius in his
brief notice of the Manichean heresy (Hist. Eccles. vii. 31)
plays, like S. Cyril, upon the name Manes as well suited to a
madman., who arose not
long ago in the reign of Probus902902 Marcus Aurelius
Probus, Emperor a.d. 276–282, from being
an obscure Illyrian soldier came to be universally esteemed the best
and noblest of the Roman Emperors.. For the
delusion began full seventy years ago903903 Routh
(R.S. V. p.
12) comes to the conclusion that the famous disputation between Manes
and Archelaus took place between July and December, a.d. 277. Accordingly these Lectures, being
“full 70 years” later, could not have been delivered before
the Spring of a.d. 348., and there are
men still living who saw him with their very eyes. But hate him
not for this, that he lived a short time ago; but because of his
impious doctrines hate thou the worker of wickedness, the receptacle of
all filth, who gathered up the mire of every heresy904904 Leo the Great
(Serm. xv. cap. 4) speaks of the madness of the later Manichees
as including all errors and impieties: “all profanity of
Paganism, all blindness of the carnal Jews, the illicit secrets of the
magic art, the sacrilege and blasphemy of all heresies, flowed together
in that sect as into a sort of cess-pool of all filth.” Leo
summoned those whom they called the “elect,” both men and
women, before an assembly of Bishops and Presbyters, and obtained from
these witnesses a full account of the execrable practices of the sect,
in which, as he declares, “their law is lying, their religion the
devil, their sacrifice obscenity.”. For aspiring to become pre-eminent
among wicked men, he took the doctrines of all, and having combined
them into one heresy filled with blasphemies and all iniquity, he makes
havoc of the Church, or rather of those outside the Church, roaming
about like a lion and devouring. Heed not their fair speech, nor
their supposed humility: for they are serpents, a generation
of vipers905905Matt. iii. 7.. Judas too
said Hail! Master906906Ib. xxvi.
49., even while he was
betraying Him. Heed not their kisses, but beware of their
venom.

21. Now, lest I seem to accuse him without
reason, let me make a digression to tell who this Manes is, and in part
what he teaches: for all time would fail to describe adequately
the whole of his foul teaching. But for help in time of
need907907Heb. iv. 16., store up in thy
memory what I have said to former hearers, and will repeat to those now
present, that they who know not may learn, and they who know may be
reminded. Manes is not of Christian origin, God forbid! nor was
he like Simon cast out of the Church, neither himself nor the teachers
who were before him. For he steals other men’s wickedness,
and makes their wickedness his own: but how and in what manner
thou must hear.

22. There was in Egypt one
Scythianus908908 Cyril takes his
account of Manes from the “Acta Archelai et Manetis
Disputationis,” of which Routh has edited the Latin
translation together with the Fragments of the Greek preserved by Cyril
in this Lecture and by Epiphanius. There is an English
translation of the whole in Clark’s “Ante-Nicene Christian
Library.”, a
40Saracen909909 The Saracens are
mentioned by both Pliny and Ptolemy. See Dict. of Greek and
Roman Geography.
by birth, having nothing in common either with Judaism or with
Christianity. This man, who dwelt at Alexandria and imitated the
life of Aristotle910910 There is no mention of
Aristotle in the Acta Archelai, but Scythianus is stated (cap.
li.) to have founded the sect in the time of the Apostles, and to have
derived his duality of Gods from Pythagoras, and to have learned the
wisdom of the Egyptians., composed four
books911911 These four books are
stated by Archelaus (Acta, cap. lii.), to have been written for
Manes by his disciple Terebinthus., one called a Gospel which had not the acts
of Christ, but the mere name only, and one other called the book of
Chapters, and a third of Mysteries, and a fourth, which they circulate
now, the Treasure912912 In allusion to this name
the history of the Disputation is called (Acta, cap. i.)
“The true Treasure.”. This man had a
disciple, Terebinthus by name. But when Scythianus purposed to
come into Judæa, and make havoc of the land, the Lord smote him
with a deadly disease, and stayed the pestilence913913 The true reading of this
sentence, προαιρούμενον
τὸν
Σκυθιανόν, instead
of τὸν
πρόειρῃμένον
Σκ., has been restored by Cleopas from the
ms. in the Archiepiscopal library at
Jerusalem. This reading agrees with the statement in
Acta Archel. cap. li.: “Scythianus thought of making
an excursion into Judæa, with the purpose of meeting all those who
had a reputation there as teachers; but it came to pass that he
suddenly departed this life, without having been able to make any
progress.”.

23. But Terebinthus, his disciple in this
wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy914914 This statement
agrees with the reading of the Vatican ms. of
the Acta Archelai, “omnibus quæcunque ejus
fuerunt congregratis.”, and came to Palestine, and becoming known
and condemned in Judæa915915 In the Acta there
is no mention of Palestine, but only that he “set out for
Babylonia, a province which is now held by the Persians.” he resolved to pass
into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his
name he changed it and called himself Buddas916916 Clem. Alex.
(Strom. i. 15): “Some also of the Indians obey the
precepts of Boutta, and honour him as a god for his extraordinary
sanctity.”. However, he found adversaries there
also in the priests of Mithras917917 Cf. Acta
Arch. cap. lii.: “A certain Parcus, however, a
prophet, and Labdacus, son of Mithras, charged him with
falsehood.” On the name Parcus and Labdacus, see Dict.
Chr. Biogr., “Barcabbas,” and on the Magian worship of
the Sun-god Mithras, see Rawlinson (Herodot. Vol. I. p.
426).: and being
confuted in the discussion of many arguments and controversies, and at
last hard pressed, he took refuge with a certain widow. Then
having gone up on the housetop, and summoned the dæmons of the
air, whom the Manichees to this day invoke over their abominable
ceremony of the fig918918 See below, §
33., he was smitten of
God, and cast down from the housetop, and expired: and so the
second beast was cut off.

24. The books, however, which were the
records of his impiety, remained; and both these and his money the
widow inherited. And having neither kinsman nor any other friend,
she determined to buy with the money a boy named Cubricus919919 Cf. Acta Arch.
cap. liii. “A boy about seven years old, named
Corbicius.”: him she adopted and educated as a son
in the learning of the Persians, and thus sharpened an evil weapon
against mankind. So Cubricus, the vile slave, grew up in the
midst of philosophers, and on the death of the widow inherited both the
books and the money. Then, lest the name of slavery might be a
reproach, instead of Cubricus he called himself Manes, which in the
language of the Persians signifies discourse920920 See a different
account in Dict. Chr. Biogr., “Manes.”. For as he thought himself something of
a disputant, he surnamed himself Manes, as it were an excellent master
of discourse. But though he contrived for himself an honourable
title according to the language of the Persians, yet the providence of
God caused him to become a self-accuser even against his will, that
through thinking to honour himself in Persia, he might proclaim himself
among the Greeks by name a maniac.

25. He dared too to say that he was the
Paraclete, though it is written, But whosoever shall blaspheme
against the Holy Ghost, hath no forgiveness921921Mark iii. 29.. He committed blasphemy therefore by
saying that he was the Holy Ghost: let him that communicates with
those heretics see with whom he is enrolling himself. The slave
shook the world, since by three things the earth is shaken, and the
fourth it cannot bear,—if a slave became a king922922Prov. xxx. 21, 22.. Having come into public he now began
to promise things above man’s power. The son of the King of
the Persians was sick, and a multitude of physicians were in
attendance: but Manes promised, as if he were a godly man, to
cure him by prayer. With the departure of the physicians, the
life of the child departed: and the man’s impiety was
detected. So the would-be philosopher was a prisoner, being cast
into prison not for reproving the king in the cause of truth, not for
destroying the idols, but for promising to save and lying, or rather,
if the truth must be told, for committing murder. For the child
who might have been saved by medical treatment, was murdered by this
man’s driving away the physicians, and killing him by want of
treatment.

26. Now as there are very many wicked things which
I tell thee of him, remember first his blasphemy, secondly his slavery
(not that slavery is a disgrace, but that his pretending to be
free-born, when he was a slave, was wicked), thirdly, the falsehood of
his promise, fourthly, the murder of the child, and fifthly,
41the disgrace of the
imprisonment. And there was not only the disgrace of the prison,
but also the flight from prison. For he who called himself the
Paraclete and champion of the truth, ran away: he was no
successor of Jesus, who readily went to the Cross, but this man was the
reverse, a runaway. Moreover, the King of the Persians ordered
the keepers of the prison to be executed: so Manes was the cause
of the child’s death through his vain boasting, and of the
gaolers’ death through his flight. Ought then he, who
shared the guilt of murder, to be worshipped? Ought he not to
have followed the example of Jesus, and said, If ye seek Me, let
these go their way923923John xviii. 8.? Ought he not
to have said, like Jonas, Take me, and cast me into the sea:
for this storm is because of me924924Jonah i. 12.?

27. He escapes from the prison, and comes
into Mesopotamia: but there Bishop Archelaus, a shield of
righteousness, encounters him925925 The account of the
discussion in this and the two following chapters is not now found in
the Latin Version of the “Disputation,” but is regarded by
Dr. Routh as having been derived by Cyril from some different copies of
the Greek. The last paragraph of § 29, “These
mysteries, &c.,” is evidently a caution addressed to the
hearers by Cyril himself (Routh, Rell. Sac. V. 199).: and having
accused him before philosophers as judges, and having assembled an
audience of Gentiles, lest if Christians gave judgment, the judges
might be thought to shew favour,—Tell us what thou preachest,
said Archelaus to Manes. And he, whose mouth was as an open
sepulchre926926Ps. v. 9., began first with
blasphemy against the Maker of all things, saying, The God of the Old
Testament is the author of evils, as He says of Himself, I am a
consuming fire927927Deut. iv. 24.. But the wise
Archelaus undermined his blasphemous argument by saying, “If the
God of the Old Testament, as thou sayest, calls Himself a fire, whose
Son is He who saith, I came to send fire on the earth928928Luke xii. 49.? If thou findest fault with Him who
saith, The Lord killeth, and maketh alive9299291 Sam. ii. 6., why
dost thou honour Peter, who raised up Tabitha, but struck Sapphira
dead? If again thou findest fault, because He prepared fire,
wherefore dost thou not find fault with Him who saith, Depart from
Me into everlasting fire930930Matt. xxv. 41.? If thou
findest fault with Him who saith, I am God that make peace, and
create evil931931Is. xlv. 7., explain how Jesus
saith, I came not to send peace but a sword932932Matt. x. 34.. Since both speak alike, of two things
one, either both are good, because of their agreement, or if Jesus is
blameless in so speaking. why blamest thou Him that saith the like in
the Old Testament?”

28. Then Manes answers him: “And
what sort of God causes blindness? For it is Paul who saith,
In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them that
believe not, lest the light of the Gospel should shine unto
them9339332 Cor. iv. 4, νοήματα,
“thoughts.”.” But
Archelaus made a good retort, saying, “Read a little
before: But if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that
are perishing9349342 Cor. iv. 3.. Seest thou
that in them that are perishing it is veiled? For it is not right
to give the things which are holy unto the dogs935935Matt. vii. 6.. Again, Is it only the God of the Old
Testament that hath blinded the minds of them that believe not?
Hath not Jesus Himself said, For this cause speak I unto them in
parables, that seeing they may not see936936Matt. xiii. 13. Both A.V. and R.V. follow the
better reading: “because seeing they see not,
&c.”? Was it from hating them that He wished
them not to see? Or because of their unworthiness, since their
eyes they had closed937937Matt. xiii. 15.. For where
there is wilful wickedness, there is also a withholding of grace:
for to him that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not
shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have938938Ib.
xxv. 29; Luke viii. 18..

29. “But if some are right in their
interpretation, we must say as follows939939 Instead of the reading
of the Benedictine and earlier editions, εἰ δὲ δεῖ
καὶ ὥς τινες
ἐξηγοῦνται
τοῦτο
εἰπεῖν, the mss. Roe and Casaubon combine δει και ως
into the one word δικαιως, which is
probably the right reading. Something, however, is still wanted
to complete the construction, and Petrus Siculus (circ.a.d. 870) who quotes the passage in his
History of the Manichees, boldly conjectures ἔστι καὶ
οὕτως
εἰπεῖν. A simpler
emendation would be—εἰ
δὲ δικαίως
τινὲς
ἐξηγοῦνται,
δεῖ τουτο
εἰπεῖν—which both
completes the construction and explains the reading δεῖ καὶ
ὡς. (for
it is no unworthy expression)—If indeed He blinded the thoughts
of them that believe not he blinded them for a good purpose, that they
might look with new sight on what is good. For he said not, He
blinded their soul, but, the thoughts of them that believe
not940940νοήματα, 2 Cor. iv. 4.. And the meaning is something of this
kind: ‘Blind the lewd thoughts of the lewd, and the man is
saved: blind the grasping and rapacious thought of the robber,
and the man is saved.’ But wilt thou not understand it
thus? Then there is yet another interpretation. The sun
also blinds those whose sight is dim: and they whose eyes are
diseased are hurt by the light and blinded. Not that the
sun’s nature is to blind, but that the substance of the eyes is
incapable of seeing. In like manner unbelievers being diseased in
their heart cannot look upon the radiance of the Godhead. Nor
hath he said, ‘He hath blinded their thoughts, that they
should not hear the Gospel:’ but, that the light of the
glory of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ should not shine unto
them. For to hear the Gospel is permitted to all: but
the glory of the Gospel is reserved for Christ’s
42true children only.
Therefore the Lord spoke in parables to those who could not
hear941941Matt. xiii. 13.: but to the Disciples he explained the
parables in private942942Mark iv. 34.: for the
brightness of the glory is for those who have been enlightened, the
blinding for them that believe not.” These mysteries, which
the Church now explains to thee who art passing out of the class of
Catechumens, it is not the custom to explain to heathen. For to a
heathen we do not explain the mysteries concerning Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, nor before Catechumens do we speak plainly of the
mysteries: but many things we often speak in a veiled way, that
the believers who know may understand, and they who know not may get no
hurt943943 See the note at the end
of Procatechesis..

30. By such and many other arguments the
serpent was overthrown: thus did Archelaus wrestle with Manes and
threw him. Again, he who had fled from prison flees from this
place also: and having run away from his antagonist, he comes to
a very poor village, like the serpent in Paradise when he left Adam and
came to Eve. But the good shepherd Archelaus taking forethought
for his sheep, when he heard of his flight, straightway hastened with
all speed in search of the wolf. And when Manes suddenly saw his
adversary, he rushed out and fled: it was however his last
flight. For the officers of the King of Persia searched
everywhere, and caught the fugitive: and the sentence, which he
ought to have received in the presence of Archelaus, is passed upon him
by the king’s officers. This Manes, whom his own disciples
worship, is arrested and brought before the king. The king
reproached him with his falsehood and his flight: poured scorn
upon his slavish condition, avenged the murder of his child, and
condemned him also for the murder of the gaolers: he commands him
to be flayed after the Persian fashion. And while the rest of his
body was given over for food of wild beasts, his skin, the receptacle
of his vile mind, was hung up before the gates like a sack944944 Disput. § 55.
Compare the account of Manes in Socrates, Eccles. Hist. I. 22, in this
series.. He that called himself the Paraclete
and professed to know the future, knew not his own flight and
capture.

31. This man has had three disciples,
Thomas, and Baddas, and Hermas. Let none read the Gospel
according to Thomas945945 The Gospel of
Thomas, an account of the Childhood of Jesus, is extant in three forms,
two in Greek and one in Latin: these are all translated in
Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library. The work is wrongly attributed
by Cyril to a disciple of Manes, being mentioned long before Hippolytus
(Refutation of all Heresies, V. 2) and by Origen (Hom. I. in
Lucam): “There is extant also the Gospel according to
Thomas.”: for it is the
work not of one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked
disciples of Manes. Let none associate with the soul-destroying
Manicheans, who by decoctions of chaff counterfeit the sad look of
fasting, who speak evil of the Creator of meats, and greedily devour
the daintiest, who teach that the man who plucks up this or that herb
is changed into it. For if he who crops herbs or any vegetable is
changed into the same, into how many will husbandmen and the tribe of
gardeners be changed946946 In the Disputation,
§ 9, Turbo describes these transformations: “Reapers
must be transformed into hay, or beans, or barley, or corn, or
vegetables, that they may be reaped and cut. Again if any one
eats bread, he must become bread, and be eaten. If one kills a
chicken, he will be a chicken himself. If one kills a mouse, he
also will be a mouse.”? The gardener,
as we see, has used his sickle against so many: into which then
is he changed? Verily their doctrines are ridiculous, and fraught
with their own condemnation and shame! The same man, being the
shepherd of a flock, both sacrifices a sheep and kills a wolf.
Into what then is he changed? Many men both net fishes and lime
birds: into which then are they transformed?

32. Let those children of sloth, the
Manicheans, make answer; who without labouring themselves eat up the
labourers’ fruits: who welcome with smiling faces those who
bring them their food, and return curses instead of blessings.
For when a simple person brings them anything, “Stand outside a
while,” saith he, “and I will bless thee.” Then
having taken the bread into his hands (as those who have repented and
left them have confessed), “I did not make thee,” says the
Manichee to the bread: and sends up curses against the Most High;
and curses him that made it, and so eats what was made947947 See Turbo’s
confession, Disput. § 9: “And when they are going to
eat bread, they first pray, speaking thus to the bread: ‘I
neither reaped thee, nor ground thee, nor kneaded thee, nor cast thee
into the oven: but another did these things and brought thee to
me, and I am not to blame for eating thee.’ And when he has
said this to himself, he says to the Catechumen, ‘I have prayed
for thee,’ and so he goes away.”. If thou hatest the food, why didst
thou look with smiling countenance on him that brought it to
thee? If thou art thankful to the bringer, why dost thou utter
thy blasphemy to God, who created and made it? So again he says,
“I sowed thee not: may he be sown who sowed thee! I
reaped thee not with a sickle: may he be reaped who reaped
thee! I baked thee not with fire: may he be baked who baked
thee!” A fine return for the kindness!

33. These are great faults, but still small
in comparison with the rest. Their Baptism I dare not describe
before men and women948948 On the rites of
Baptism and Eucharist employed by the Manichees, see Dict. Chr. Biogr.,
Manicheans.. I dare not say
what they distribute to their wretched communicants949949 The original runs:
Οὐ
τολμῶ εἰπεῖν,
τίνι
ἐμβάπτοντες
τὴν ἰσχάδα,
διδόασι τοῖς
ἀθλίοις. διὰ
συσσήμων δὲ
μόνον
δηλούσθω.
ἄνδρες γὰρ τὰ
ἐν τοῖς
ἐνυπνιασμοῖς
ἐνθυμείσθωσιν,
καὶ γυναῖκες
τὰ ἐν
ἀφέδροις.
Μιαίνομεν
ἀληθας τὸ
στόμα κ.τ.λ.….Truly we pollute 43our mouth in speaking of these
things. Are the heathen more detestable than these? Are the
Samaritans more wretched? Are Jews more impious? Are
fornicators more impure950950῾Ο
μὲν γὰρ
πορνεύσας,
πρὸς μίαν
ὥραν δ
ἐπιθυμίαν
τελεῖ τὴν
πρᾶξιν·
καταγινώσκων
δὲ τῆς
πράξεως ὡς
μιανθεὶς
οἶδε λουτροῦ
ἐπιδεόμενος,
καὶ γινώσκει
τῆς πρὰξεως
τὸ μυσαρόν.
῾Ο δὲ
Μανιχαῖος
θυσιαστηρίου
μέσον, οὗ
νομίζει,
τίθησι ταῦτα,
καὶ μιαίνει
καὶ τὸ στόμα
καὶ τὴν
γλῶτταν. παρὰ
τοιούτου
στόματος,
ἄνθρωπε
κ.τ.λ.? But the
Manichee sets these offerings in the midst of the altar as he considers
it951951οὗ
νομίζει. The Manichees
boasted of their superiority to the Pagans in not worshipping God with
altars, temples, images, victims, or incense (August. contra
Faustum XX. cap. 15). Yet they used the names, as
Augustine affirms (l. c. cap. 18): “Nevertheless I
wish you would tell me why you call all those things which you approve
in your own case by these names, temple, altar,
sacrifice.”. And dost thou, O man, receive
instruction from such a mouth? On meeting this man dost thou
greet him at all with a kiss? To say nothing of his other
impiety, dost thou not flee from the defilement, and from men worse
than profligates, more detestable than any prostitute?

35. But may the Lord deliver us from such
delusion: and may there be given to you a hatred against the
serpent, that as they lie in wait for the heel, so you may trample on
their head. Remember ye what I say. What agreement can
there be between our state and theirs? What communion hath
light with darkness9539532 Cor. vi. 14.? What hath the
majesty of the Church to do with the abomination of the
Manichees? Here is order, here is discipline954954 Gr. ἐπιστήμη. See
note on Introductory Lect. § 4.,
here is majesty, here is purity: here even to look upon a
woman to lust after her955955Matt. v. 28. is
condemnation. Here is marriage with sanctity956956σεμνότατος
is the reading of the chief mss.
But the printed editions have σεμνότητος,
comparing it with such phrases as στόμα
ἀθεότητος (vi.
15), and μετάνοια
τῆς
σωτηρίας (xiv. 17).,
here steadfast continence, here virginity in honour like unto the
Angels: here partaking of food with thanksgiving, here gratitude
to the Creator of the world. Here the Father of Christ is
worshipped: here are taught fear and trembling before Him who
sends the rain: here we ascribe glory to Him who makes the
thunder and the lightning.

36. Make thou thy fold with the sheep:
flee from the wolves: depart not from the Church. Hate
those also who have ever been suspected in such matters: and
unless in time thou perceive their repentance, do not rashly trust
thyself among them. The truth of the Unity of God has been
delivered to thee: learn to distinguish the pastures of
doctrine. Be an approved banker957957 This saying is quoted three times in
the Clementine Homilies as spoken by our Lord. See Hom. II.
§ 51; III. § 50; XVIII. § 20: “Every man who
wishes to be saved must become, as the Teacher said, a judge of the
books written to try us. For thus He spake: Become
experienced bankers. Now the need of bankers arises from the
circumstance that the spurious is mixed up with the
genuine.” On the same saying, quoted as Scripture
in the Apostolic Constitutions (II. § 36), Cotelerius suggests
that in oral tradition, or in some Apocryphal book, the proverb was
said to come from the Old Testament, and was added by some transcriber
as a gloss in the margin of Matt. xxv. 27, or
Luke xix. 23. Dionysius
of Alexandria, Epist. VII., speaks of “the Apostolic word, which
thus urges all who are endowed with greater virtue, ‘Be ye
skillful money-changers,’” referring apparently as here to
1 Thess. v. 21, 22, “try all things,
&c.” (See Euseb. E.H. VII. ch. 6 in this
series: Suicer. Thesaurus, Τραπεζίτης:
and Resch. (Agrapha, pp. 233–239.), holding fast
that which is good, abstaining from every form of evil9589581 Thess. v. 21, 22.. Or if thou hast ever been such as
they, recognise and hate thy delusion. For there is a way of
salvation, if thou reject the vomit, if thou from thy heart detest it,
if thou depart from them, not with thy lips only, but with thy soul
also: if thou worship the Father of Christ, the God of the Law
and the Prophets, if thou acknowledge the Good and the Just to be one
and the same God.959959 Compare § 13 of
this Lecture, where Cyril seems to refer especially to the heresy of
Manes, as described in the Disputatio Archelai, cap. 6:
“If you are desirous of being instructed in the faith of Manes,
hear it briefly from me. That man worships two gods, unbegotten,
self-originate, eternal, opposed one to the other. The one he
represents as good, and the other as evil, naming the one Light, and
the other Darkness.” And may He
preserve you all, guarding you from falling or stumbling, stablished in
the Faith, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to Whom be glory for ever and
ever. Amen.

819Περὶ Θεοῦ
Μοναρχίας.
The word μοναρχία,
as used by Plato (Polit. 291 C), Aristotle (Polit. III.
xiv. 11. εἶδος
μοναρχίας
βασιλικῆς),
Philo Judæus (de Circumcisione, § 2; de
Monarchia, Titul.), means “sole government.”
Compare Tertullian (adv. Praxean. c. iii.): “If I
have gained any knowledge of either language, I am sure that
Μοναρχία
has no other meaning than ‘single and individual
rule.’” Athanasius (de Decretis Nicænæ
Synodi, § 26) has preserved part of an Epistle of Dionysius,
Bishop of Rome (259–269, a.d.), against
the Sabellians: “It will be natural for me now to speak
against those who divide, and cut into pieces, and destroy that most
sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Monarchia, making it, as it
were, three powers and divided hypostases, and three Godheads;”
(ibid.): “It is the doctrine of the presumptuous
Marcion to sever and divide the Monarchia into three origins
(ἀρχάς).” We see here the
sense which Μοναρχία
had acquired in Christian Theology: it meant the
“Unity of God,” as the one principle and origin of all
things. “By the Monarchy is meant the doctrine that the
Second and Third Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity are ever to be
referred in our thoughts to the First, as the Fountain of
Godhead” (Newman, Athanas. de Decretis Nic. Syn.
§ 26, note h). Justin Martyr (Euseb. H.E. IV. 18),
and Irenæus (ibid. V. 20), had each written a
treatise περὶ
Μοναρχίας.
On the history of Monarchianism see, in this Series, Athanasius,
Prolegomena, p. xxiii. sqq.

821 This clause is omitted in some
mss. Various forms of the Doxology were
adopted in Cyril’s time by various parties in the Church.
Thus Theodoret (Hist. Eccles. II. c. 19) relates that Leontius,
Bishop of Antioch, a.d. 348–357,
observing that the Clergy and the Congregation were divided into two
parties, the one using the form “and to the Son, and to the Holy
Ghost,” the other “through the Son, in the Holy
Ghost,” used to repeat the Doxology silently, so that those who
were near could hear only “world without end.” The form which was regarded as the most
orthodox, and adopted in the Liturgies ran thus: “Glory to
the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, now and ever, and to
the ages of the ages.” See Suicer’s Thesaurus,
Δοξολογία.

822 Irenæus II. xxviii.
4: “But since God is all mind, all reason, all active
Spirit, all light, and always exists as one and the same, such
conditions and divisions (of operation) cannot fittingly be ascribed to
Him. For our tongue, as being made of flesh, is not able to
minister to the rapidity of man’s sense, because that is of a
spiritual nature; for which reason our speech is restrained
(suffocatur) within us, and is not at once expressed as it has
been conceived in the mind but is uttered by successive efforts, just
as the tongue is able to serve it.”

823 Tertullian,
Apologeticus, § 17: “That which is infinite is
known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God,
while yet beyond all our conceptions—our very incapacity of fully
grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is. He is
presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known
and unknown.” Cf. Phil. Jud. de Monarch. i.
4: Hooker, Eccles. Pol. I. ii. 3: “Whom
although to know be life, and joy to make mention of His name; yet our
soundest knowledge is to know that we know Him not as He is, neither
can know Him.”

826 The opinion of
Aristarchus of Samos, as stated by Archimedes (Arenarius, p.
320, Oxon), was that the sphere of the fixed stars was so large, that
it bore to the earth’s orbit the same proportion as a sphere to
its centre, or more correctly (as Archimedes explains) the same
proportion as the earth’s orbit round the sun to the earth
itself. Compare Cat. xv. 24.

837 The Benedictine and
earlier printed texts read ὁ
γεννηθεὶς
[ἀπαθῶς πρὸ
τῶν χρόνων
αἰωνίων]: but
the words in brackets are not found in the best mss. The false grammar betrays a spurious insertion,
which also interrupts the sense. On the meaning of the
phrase ὁ γεννηθεὶς
ἀπαθῶς, see note on vii.
5: οὐ
πάθει πατὴρ
γενόμενος.

839 Iren. II. xiii. 3:
“He is altogether like and equal to Himself; since He is all
sense, and all spirit, and all feeling, and all thought, and all
reason, and all hearing, and all ear, and all eye, and all light, and
all a fount of every good,—even as the religious and pious are
wont to speak of God.”

841 Iren. II. xxxv. 3:
“If any object that in the Hebrew language different expressions
occur, such as Sabaoth, Elöe, Adonai, and all other such terms,
striving to prove from these that there are different powers and Gods,
let them learn that all expressions of this kind are titles and
announcements of one and the same Being.”

857 The cat was sacred to the goddess
Pasht, called by the Greeks Bubastis, and identified by Herodotus (ii.
137) with Artemis or Diana. Cats were embalmed after death, and
their mummies are found at various places, but especially at Bubastis
(Herod. ii. 67). “The Dogs are interred in the cities to
which they belong, in sacred burial-places” (Herod. ii.
67), but chiefly at Cynopolis (“City of Dogs”) where the
dog-headed deity Anubis was worshipped. Mummies of wolves are found in chambers
excavated in the rocks at Lycopolis, where Osiris was worshipped under
the symbol of a wolf.

859 “In the neighbourhood of Thebes
there are sacred serpents perfectly harmless to man. These they
bury in the temple of Zeus, the god to whom they are
sacred.” (Herod. ii. 74.) At Epidaurus in Argolis the serpent
was held sacred as the symbol of Æsculapius. Clement of
Alexandria (Exhort. c. ii.) gives a fuller list of animals
worshipped by various nations. Compare also Clement.
Recogn. V. 20.

864 The early Creeds of the
Eastern Churches, like that which Eusebius of Cæsarea proposed at
Nicæa, expressly declare the unity of God, in opposition both to
the heathen Polytheism, and to the various heresies which introduced
two or more Gods. See below in this Lecture, §§
12–18; and compare Athan. (contra Gentes, § 6,
sqq.)

865 Clement of
Alexandria (Exhort. cap. ii. § 37), quotes a passage from a
hymn of Callimachus, implying the death of Zeus: “For even thy tomb, O king, The Cretans fashioned.” Adonis, or “Thammuz yearly
wounded,” was said to live and die in alternate years.

866 By the word
“falls” (ἀποπτώσεις) Cyril evidently refers to the story of Hephæstus, or Vulcan, to
which Milton alludes (Paradise Lost, I. 740):— “Men call’d him Mulciber, and how he
fell From heaven they fabled, thrown by angry Jove Sheer o’er the crystal battlements: from
morn To noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve, A summer’s day.”

868 The theory of two Gods,
one good and the other evil, was held by Cerdo, and Marcion
(Hippolytus, Refut. omnium Hær. VII. cap. 17:
Irenæus, III. xxv. 3, quoted in note on Cat. iv. 4). The
Manichees also held that the Creator of the world was distinct from the
Supreme God (Alexander Lycop. de Manichæorum Sententiis,
cap. iii.).

8692 Cor. vi. 14. Cyril’s description applies
especially to the heresy of Manes. See § 36, note 3, at the
end of this Lecture; also Cat. xi. 21. and Cat. xv. 3.

870 So Irenæus (I.
xxiii. 2) says that “from this Simon of Samaria all kinds of
heresies derive their origin.”

873 Irenæus (I. xxiii.
2): “Having purchased from Tyre, a city of Phœnicia, a
certain harlot named Helena, he used to carry her about with him,
declaring that this woman was the first conception of his mind, the
mother of all, by whom in the beginning he conceived in his mind the
creation of Angels and Archangels.”

874 Cf. Epiphan.
(Hæres. p. 55, B): “He said that he was the Son
and had not really suffered, but only in appearance (δοκήσει).”

875 Irenæus (I. xxiii. 1): “He
taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, and
descended in Samaria as the Father, but came to other nations as the
Holy Spirit.” Cyril here departs from his authority by
substituting Mount Sinai for Samaria, and thereby falls into
error. Simon had first appeared in Samaria, being a native of
Gitton: moreover in claiming to be the Father he meant to set
himself far above the inferior Deity who had given the Law on Sinai,
saying that he was “the highest of all Powers, that is the Father
who is over all.”

876 “Justin Martyr in
his first Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, writes thus (c.
26): ‘There was one Simon a Samaritan, of the village
called Gitton, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your
royal city of Rome, did mighty feats of magic by the art of dæmons
working in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was
honoured among you with a statue, which statue was set up in the river
Tiber between the two bridges, and bears this inscription in Latin:Simoni Deo Sancto; which is, To Simon the holy God. “The substance of this story is repeated by
Irenæus (adv. Hær. I. xxiii. 1), and by
Tertullian (Apol. c. 13), who reproaches the Romans for
installing Simon Magus in their Pantheon, and giving him a statue and
the title ‘Holy God.’ “In a.d. 1574, a
stone, which had formed the base of a statue, was dug up on the site
described by Justin, the Island in the Tiber, bearing an
inscription—‘Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum,
&c.’ Hence it has been supposed that Justin mistook a
statue of the Sabine God, ‘Semo Sancus,’ for one of Simon
Magus. See the notes in Otto’s Justin Martyr, and
Stieren’s Irenæus. “On the other hand Tillemont
(Memoires, t. ii. p. 482) maintains that Justin in an
Apology addressed to the emperor and written in Rome itself cannot
reasonably be supposed to have fallen into so manifest an error.
Whichever view we take of Justin’s accuracy concerning the
inscription and the statue, there is nothing improbable in his
statement that Simon Magus was at Rome in the reign of
Claudius.” (Extracted by permission from the
Speaker’s Commentary, Introduction to the Epistle to the
Romans, p. 4.)

877 “Justin says not one word about
St. Peter’s alleged visit to Rome, and his encounter with Simon
Magus.” But “Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical
History (c. a.d. 325), quotes Justin
Martyr’s story about Simon Magus (E. H. ii. c. 13), and
then, without referring to any authority, goes on to assert (c. 14)
that ‘immediately in the same reign of Claudius divine Providence
led Peter the great Apostle to Rome to encounter this great destroyer
of life,’ and that he thus brought the light of the Gospel from
the East to the West’ (ibidem). Eusebius probably borrowed this
story “from the strange fictions of the Clementine
Recognitions and Homilies, and Apostolic
Constitutions.” See Recogn. III. 63–65;
Hom. I. 15, III. 58; Apost. Constit. VI. 7, 8, 9.
Cyril’s account of Simon’s death is taken from the same
untrustworthy sources.

882 Cerinthus taught that
the world was not made by the supreme God, but by a separate Power
ignorant of Him. See Irenæus, Hær. I.
xxvi., Euseb. E.H. iii. 28, with the notes in this
Series.

883 Menander is first
mentioned by Justin M. (Apolog. I. cap. 26):
“Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a
disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived
many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded
those who adhered to him that they should never die.”
Irenæus (I. xxiii. 5) adds that Menander announced himself as the
Saviour sent by the Invisibles, and taught that the world was created
by Angels. See also Tertullian (de Animâ, cap.
50.)

884 Carpocrates, a
Platonic philosopher, who taught at Alexandria (125 a.d. circ.), held that the world and all things in
it were made by Angels far inferior to the unbegotten (unknown) Father
(Iren. I. xxv. 1; Tertullian, Adv. Hær. cap. 3).

885 Irenæus, I.
26: “Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world
was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are like
those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.”

890 Marcion accepted only
St. Luke’s Gospel, and mutilated that (Tertullian, Adv.
Marcion. iv. 2). He thus got rid of the testimony of the
Apostles and eye-witnesses, Matthew and John, and represented the Law
and the Gospel as contradictory revelations of two different
Gods. For this Cyril calls him ‘a second inventor of
mischief,’ Simon Magus (§ 14) being the first.

891 Basilides was
earlier than Marcion, being the founder of a Gnostic sect at Alexandria
in the reign of Hadrian (a.d.
117–138). His doctrines are described by Irenæus (I.
xxvii. 3–7), and very fully by Hippolytus (Refut. omn.
Hær. VII. 2–15). The charge of teaching
licentiousness attaches rather to the later followers of Basilides than
to himself or his son Isidorus (Clem. Alex. Stromat. III.
cap. 1). Basilides wrote a Commentary on the Gospel in 24 books
(Exegetica), of which the 23rd is quoted by Clement of
Alexandria (Stromat. IV. cap. 12), and against which Agrippa
Castor wrote a refutation. Origen (Hom. I. in
Lucam.) says that Basilides wrote a Gospel bearing his own
name. See Routh, Rell. Sacr. I. p. 85; V. p.
106: Westcott, History of Canon of N.T. iv. §
3.

892 “The
doctrines of Valentinus are described fully by Irenæus (I. cap.
i.) from whom S. Cyril takes this account. Valentinus, and
Basilides, and Bardesanes, and Harmonious, and those of their company
admit Christ’s conception and birth of the Virgin, but say that
God the Word received no addition from the Virgin, but made a sort of
passage through her, as through a tube, and made use of a phantom in
appearing to men.” (Theodoret, Epist.
145.)

896 Irenæus, l. c., and Hippolytus, who
gives an elaborate account of the doctrines of Valentinus (L. VI. capp.
xvi.–xxxii.), both represent Sophia, “Wisdom,” as
giving birth not to Satan, but to a shapeless abortion, which was the
origin of matter. According to Irenæus (I. iv. 2), Achamoth,
the enthymesis of Sophia, gave birth to the Demiurge, and “from
her tears all that is of a liquid nature was formed.” In Tertullian’s Treatise
against the Valentinians chap. xxii., Achamoth is said as by
Cyril to have given birth to Satan: but in chap. xxiii. Satan
seems to be identified (or interchanged) with the Demiurge.

897 The account in Irenæus (I. ii. 6) is
rather different: “The whole Pleroma of the Æons, with
one design and desire, and with the concurrence of the Christ and the
Holy Spirit, their Father also setting the seal of His approval on
their conduct, brought together whatever each one had in himself of the
greatest beauty and preciousness; and uniting all these contributions
so as skilfully to blend the whole, they produced, to the honour and
glory of Bythus, a being of most perfect beauty, the very star of the
Pleroma, and its perfect fruit, namely Jesus.” Tertullian, Against the
Valentinians, chap. 12, gives a sarcastic description of this
strange doctrine, deriving his facts (chap. 5) from Justin, Miltiades,
“Irenæus, that very exact inquirer into all
doctrines,” and Proculus.

898 This statement does not
agree with Irenæus (I. vii. 1), who says that the Valentinians
represented the Saviour, that is Jesus, as becoming the bridegroom of
Achamoth or Sophia.

901 Eusebius in his
brief notice of the Manichean heresy (Hist. Eccles. vii. 31)
plays, like S. Cyril, upon the name Manes as well suited to a
madman.

902 Marcus Aurelius
Probus, Emperor a.d. 276–282, from being
an obscure Illyrian soldier came to be universally esteemed the best
and noblest of the Roman Emperors.

903 Routh
(R.S. V. p.
12) comes to the conclusion that the famous disputation between Manes
and Archelaus took place between July and December, a.d. 277. Accordingly these Lectures, being
“full 70 years” later, could not have been delivered before
the Spring of a.d. 348.

904 Leo the Great
(Serm. xv. cap. 4) speaks of the madness of the later Manichees
as including all errors and impieties: “all profanity of
Paganism, all blindness of the carnal Jews, the illicit secrets of the
magic art, the sacrilege and blasphemy of all heresies, flowed together
in that sect as into a sort of cess-pool of all filth.” Leo
summoned those whom they called the “elect,” both men and
women, before an assembly of Bishops and Presbyters, and obtained from
these witnesses a full account of the execrable practices of the sect,
in which, as he declares, “their law is lying, their religion the
devil, their sacrifice obscenity.”

908 Cyril takes his
account of Manes from the “Acta Archelai et Manetis
Disputationis,” of which Routh has edited the Latin
translation together with the Fragments of the Greek preserved by Cyril
in this Lecture and by Epiphanius. There is an English
translation of the whole in Clark’s “Ante-Nicene Christian
Library.”

909 The Saracens are
mentioned by both Pliny and Ptolemy. See Dict. of Greek and
Roman Geography.

910 There is no mention of
Aristotle in the Acta Archelai, but Scythianus is stated (cap.
li.) to have founded the sect in the time of the Apostles, and to have
derived his duality of Gods from Pythagoras, and to have learned the
wisdom of the Egyptians.

911 These four books are
stated by Archelaus (Acta, cap. lii.), to have been written for
Manes by his disciple Terebinthus.

912 In allusion to this name
the history of the Disputation is called (Acta, cap. i.)
“The true Treasure.”

913 The true reading of this
sentence, προαιρούμενον
τὸν
Σκυθιανόν, instead
of τὸν
πρόειρῃμένον
Σκ., has been restored by Cleopas from the
ms. in the Archiepiscopal library at
Jerusalem. This reading agrees with the statement in
Acta Archel. cap. li.: “Scythianus thought of making
an excursion into Judæa, with the purpose of meeting all those who
had a reputation there as teachers; but it came to pass that he
suddenly departed this life, without having been able to make any
progress.”

914 This statement
agrees with the reading of the Vatican ms. of
the Acta Archelai, “omnibus quæcunque ejus
fuerunt congregratis.”

915 In the Acta there
is no mention of Palestine, but only that he “set out for
Babylonia, a province which is now held by the Persians.”

916 Clem. Alex.
(Strom. i. 15): “Some also of the Indians obey the
precepts of Boutta, and honour him as a god for his extraordinary
sanctity.”

917 Cf. Acta
Arch. cap. lii.: “A certain Parcus, however, a
prophet, and Labdacus, son of Mithras, charged him with
falsehood.” On the name Parcus and Labdacus, see Dict.
Chr. Biogr., “Barcabbas,” and on the Magian worship of
the Sun-god Mithras, see Rawlinson (Herodot. Vol. I. p.
426).

925 The account of the
discussion in this and the two following chapters is not now found in
the Latin Version of the “Disputation,” but is regarded by
Dr. Routh as having been derived by Cyril from some different copies of
the Greek. The last paragraph of § 29, “These
mysteries, &c.,” is evidently a caution addressed to the
hearers by Cyril himself (Routh, Rell. Sac. V. 199).

939 Instead of the reading
of the Benedictine and earlier editions, εἰ δὲ δεῖ
καὶ ὥς τινες
ἐξηγοῦνται
τοῦτο
εἰπεῖν, the mss. Roe and Casaubon combine δει και ως
into the one word δικαιως, which is
probably the right reading. Something, however, is still wanted
to complete the construction, and Petrus Siculus (circ.a.d. 870) who quotes the passage in his
History of the Manichees, boldly conjectures ἔστι καὶ
οὕτως
εἰπεῖν. A simpler
emendation would be—εἰ
δὲ δικαίως
τινὲς
ἐξηγοῦνται,
δεῖ τουτο
εἰπεῖν—which both
completes the construction and explains the reading δεῖ καὶ
ὡς.

945 The Gospel of
Thomas, an account of the Childhood of Jesus, is extant in three forms,
two in Greek and one in Latin: these are all translated in
Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library. The work is wrongly attributed
by Cyril to a disciple of Manes, being mentioned long before Hippolytus
(Refutation of all Heresies, V. 2) and by Origen (Hom. I. in
Lucam): “There is extant also the Gospel according to
Thomas.”

946 In the Disputation,
§ 9, Turbo describes these transformations: “Reapers
must be transformed into hay, or beans, or barley, or corn, or
vegetables, that they may be reaped and cut. Again if any one
eats bread, he must become bread, and be eaten. If one kills a
chicken, he will be a chicken himself. If one kills a mouse, he
also will be a mouse.”

947 See Turbo’s
confession, Disput. § 9: “And when they are going to
eat bread, they first pray, speaking thus to the bread: ‘I
neither reaped thee, nor ground thee, nor kneaded thee, nor cast thee
into the oven: but another did these things and brought thee to
me, and I am not to blame for eating thee.’ And when he has
said this to himself, he says to the Catechumen, ‘I have prayed
for thee,’ and so he goes away.”

948 On the rites of
Baptism and Eucharist employed by the Manichees, see Dict. Chr. Biogr.,
Manicheans.

951οὗ
νομίζει. The Manichees
boasted of their superiority to the Pagans in not worshipping God with
altars, temples, images, victims, or incense (August. contra
Faustum XX. cap. 15). Yet they used the names, as
Augustine affirms (l. c. cap. 18): “Nevertheless I
wish you would tell me why you call all those things which you approve
in your own case by these names, temple, altar,
sacrifice.”

956σεμνότατος
is the reading of the chief mss.
But the printed editions have σεμνότητος,
comparing it with such phrases as στόμα
ἀθεότητος (vi.
15), and μετάνοια
τῆς
σωτηρίας (xiv. 17).

957 This saying is quoted three times in
the Clementine Homilies as spoken by our Lord. See Hom. II.
§ 51; III. § 50; XVIII. § 20: “Every man who
wishes to be saved must become, as the Teacher said, a judge of the
books written to try us. For thus He spake: Become
experienced bankers. Now the need of bankers arises from the
circumstance that the spurious is mixed up with the
genuine.” On the same saying, quoted as Scripture
in the Apostolic Constitutions (II. § 36), Cotelerius suggests
that in oral tradition, or in some Apocryphal book, the proverb was
said to come from the Old Testament, and was added by some transcriber
as a gloss in the margin of Matt. xxv. 27, or
Luke xix. 23. Dionysius
of Alexandria, Epist. VII., speaks of “the Apostolic word, which
thus urges all who are endowed with greater virtue, ‘Be ye
skillful money-changers,’” referring apparently as here to
1 Thess. v. 21, 22, “try all things,
&c.” (See Euseb. E.H. VII. ch. 6 in this
series: Suicer. Thesaurus, Τραπεζίτης:
and Resch. (Agrapha, pp. 233–239.)

959 Compare § 13 of
this Lecture, where Cyril seems to refer especially to the heresy of
Manes, as described in the Disputatio Archelai, cap. 6:
“If you are desirous of being instructed in the faith of Manes,
hear it briefly from me. That man worships two gods, unbegotten,
self-originate, eternal, opposed one to the other. The one he
represents as good, and the other as evil, naming the one Light, and
the other Darkness.”